| Revision as of 17:53, 13 December 2005 editTed Wilkes (talk | contribs)18,934 edits Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee Code of Conduct← Previous edit | Revision as of 15:20, 14 December 2005 edit undoJimbo Wales (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Founder14,538 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
| ==Election procedure== | ==Election procedure== | ||
| The result of the ] was 19-3-25-5 (plus some votes like 'don't care' and 'abstain'). Therefore we will be using my second proposal. | |||
| The exact procedure is yet to be determined, but will be radically different from last year's, reflecting our learning about what did and didn't work. | |||
| "Hybrid approach: Jimbo can put forward candidates for community approval, 50% majority is enough. And also the community can put forward candidates for Jimbo's approval, with the same 50% majority being enough. Any dually approved candidates above the number of seats on the ArbCom go into a pool of reserves. Jimbo states a general intention to always appoint candidates approved by the community as a matter of convention, while reserving the right to refuse to seat any particularly problematic candidates." | |||
| The most likely process will be that the appointments made by Jimbo will be based on nominations and volunteerings, with the appointments made in consultation with the existing and former Committee members and the community at large, possibly followed by confirmation votes from the community, perhaps requiring some supermajority. | |||
| The community can and should begin a community approval process immediately, patterned as closely as is reasonable after the RfA process. The point of the process should be to generate a pool of acceptable candidates from whom I can make appointments. | |||
| A current Arbitrator has stated that Jimbo might select a set of approved would-be appointees. The community then has an approval vote on them. Would-be appointees receiving greater than, for example, 50% approval will be appointed. It is as yet unclear whether the community votes on the group or on the individuals, and what will happen if candidates fail to get sufficient support. | |||
| Notice that the way this is designed, all candidates must go through the approval process, so my role in putting forward candidates is essentially just a way for me to communicate pre-approval to the community. I don't plan to do that in this term unless it appears that we are overlooking someone particularly noteworthy. | |||
| The election, if it takes place at all, is currently not scheduled; any vote will, as usual, use the ] software, which currently uses ]. | |||
| An independent election organizing committee is normally appointed. In this capacity, the committee's members would make procedural decisions about how the election would be run, and announce the election results. They would not be entitled to promote candidates, nor vote in the election themselves. | |||
| ==Candidate statements== | ==Candidate statements== | ||
| Line 35: | Line 33: | ||
| ==See also== | ==See also== | ||
| * ] | * ] | ||
Revision as of 15:20, 14 December 2005
Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/Templates/2005 ArbCom electionIn December 2005, the second annual election for the Arbitration Committee may be held to advise Jimbo as to how to appoint to the Committee.
At least nine of the twelve seats will be up for change, as the terms of Fred Bauder and David Gerard will expire on December 31, 2005, as will the temporary placements of James F., Fennec, JayJG, Mindspillage and Kelly Martin. Finally, Sannse has resigned from the Committee.
When the Arbitration Committee were first appointed, Jimbo intended that Arbitrators serve staggered three-year terms to provide continuity. In any such election, Arbitrators are entitled to run for re-appointment. The remaining appointed seats will be up for election when their terms expire.
Please note: Currently there is a policy discussion at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee Code of Conduct.
Election procedure
The result of the poll was 19-3-25-5 (plus some votes like 'don't care' and 'abstain'). Therefore we will be using my second proposal.
"Hybrid approach: Jimbo can put forward candidates for community approval, 50% majority is enough. And also the community can put forward candidates for Jimbo's approval, with the same 50% majority being enough. Any dually approved candidates above the number of seats on the ArbCom go into a pool of reserves. Jimbo states a general intention to always appoint candidates approved by the community as a matter of convention, while reserving the right to refuse to seat any particularly problematic candidates."
The community can and should begin a community approval process immediately, patterned as closely as is reasonable after the RfA process. The point of the process should be to generate a pool of acceptable candidates from whom I can make appointments.
Notice that the way this is designed, all candidates must go through the approval process, so my role in putting forward candidates is essentially just a way for me to communicate pre-approval to the community. I don't plan to do that in this term unless it appears that we are overlooking someone particularly noteworthy.
Candidate statements
Candidate statements for the December 2005 elections can be found here.
Proposed changes
- A set of proposed modifications to rules made by jguk.
- A proposed overhaul of elections and the dispute resolution system generally, made by Michael Snow.
- Quadell's proposal - It can all be very simple, if we want.
- Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution reform (WP:DRR) - for general and organized overview of proposed changes to DR system and process.